Performance Analysis of Communication Scheduling Schemes for Distributed Deep Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing popularity of large-scale deep neural networks, efficient communication scheduling has become crucial in distributed deep learning systems to reduce overall training time. In multi-job distributed training scenarios, current communication scheduling methods do not effectively utilize the periodic communication patterns of deep learning training (DLT) jobs to reduce the potential link contention. When multiple tenants run concurrent jobs and compete for network resources, training performance can degrade due to increased network contention. In this paper, we focus on exploring the potential of leveraging periodic communication patterns in scheduling DLT jobs. We analyze the performance of static shift-based scheduling strategies based on the least common multiple (LCM) alignment in handling multi-job communication conflicts. Through theoretical analysis and validation via real-world experiments, we expose fundamental limitations of shift-based scheduling strategies, which fail to improve training throughput in about 73 % of multi-job scenarios. Our research work provides guidance for future research on understanding traffic patterns of DLT jobs and lays the groundwork for communication scheduling optimization in multi-tenant clusters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it